A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Arabic and Persian

EAS Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies Abbreviated Key Title: EAS J Humanit Cult Stud ISSN: 2663-0958 (Print) & ISSN: 2663-6743 (Online)

Published By East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya

Volume-2 | Issue-4| Jul-Aug 2020 | DOI: 10.36349/EASJHCS.2020.V02I04.008

*Corresponding Author: Yahya Kardgar 54

Research Article

A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Arabic and Persian

Yahya Kardgar

Associate Professor, Department of Persian language and literature, Faculty of literature and Humanities, University of Qom, Qom,

Iran

Article History

Received: 06.08.2020

Accepted: 22.08.2020

Published: 30.08.2020

Journal homepage:

https://www.easpublisher.com/easjhcs

Quick Response Code

Abstract: Metaphor is one of the most important types of trope e that has a special place in

every language, but the way it has been viewed in various languages is different. In Arabic

and Persian, the similarities of this discussion are more than its distinctions, in that most of

the metaphorical topics of Arabic rhetoric books have been repeated in Persian books two or

three centuries later. The subject of metaphor in Arabic books has experienced five stages of

outset, growth, prosperity, recession, and Modernism, and has undergone three stages of

genesis, expansion, and edition in Farsi with fewer developments. Genesis corresponds to

the period of outset and growth; the period of expansion corresponds to the period of

recession and the period of edition to the period of Arab modernism. Unfortunately, the

Persian rhetoric has not benefited much from the prosperity period of the Arabic rhetoric, so

its analytical and aesthetic outlook is weak. Today, research in both languages tend to focus

on critical topics, the use of metaphorical studies of other languages, and the linguistic

outlook, with a greater emphasis on the nature of language and Nativism in Persian

metaphor- seekers. Not paying attention to the development of metaphorical culture,

disregard for literary types and styles in metaphorical research, and disregard for the

evolution of metaphor in literary texts are the weaknesses of metaphorical research in both

languages.

Keywords: Rhetoric; Persian language; Arabic language; trope e; metaphor. Copyright © 2020 The Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original

author and source are credited.

INTRODUCTION Having been saturated from several sources,

the Arabic rhetoric has grown significantly after the

Islam, often with the motive of proving the rhetorical

miracle of the Qur'an; Greek, Iranian, and Indian people

have not forgotten it. Nevertheless, Muslim res r rs

s rs v v r r tt t r r

r s x t r ts t r -

s r t r y w - -t y - Jahiz

speaks of the Persian book Karvand and its rhetorical

place (Al-Jahiz, 1926, vol.3, 14). In addition, Ibn

Nadim mentions the book of the Kasra Testimony of

Anushravan Ela Ibn as "the nest of Rhetoric" (Ibn

Nadim, 1927, 559), and he also talks about the old

translations of his Rhetorica, that is Aristotle's Sermon,

and " poetics", which is a technique of poetry (Ibn

Nadim, 1927, 456), and introduces Farsi, Hindi and

Nabatian translators into Arabic. Intellectual centers

such as Bayt al-Ḥikmah, or Khazaneh al-Hikmah or Dar

al-Ilm, which have been established in the first years of

the third century as ordered by Ma'mun Abbasi (813-

817) indicate the scientific transactions of Muslims with

other nations, among which Iranians have had a special

place (Tafazoli, 1957, 314). It is, therefore, not

surprising if the scholar of Arabic rhetoric history

emphasizes the role of other nations, especially

Iranians, in the flourishing of rhetoric (Atiq, no date,

50). As a result, the Islamic-Arabic rhetoric can be

known as the product of Muslim rhetoric interaction

with Greeks, Iranians and Indians. A thorough

examination of this issue requires a great deal of time.

Therefore, in this article, we will examine the

comparative study of metaphors in Arabic and Farsi in

order to establish a basis for a comprehensive research

on this subject.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND In recent years, some researches have been

published regarding the link between Arabic and

Persian rhetoric. These studies have compared the

rhetoric of both languages in an overview, among

which Ehsan Sadegh Saeed's book named Rhetorical

Science between Arabs and Iranians can be mentioned;

nonetheless, no independent research has ever been

published with regard to comparing the rhetoric of two

languages, including metaphor. The book Metaphor in

Islamic Rhetoric by Mohammad Mahdi Moghimizadeh

is one of a handful of works that addresses this subject,

in which the contribution of the Persian research is very

little. Therefore, this article can be one of the earliest

research in this field.

Significance, Method, and Research Question

Since the rhetoric of each language must be

extracted from the text and the context of the same

language, a comparative research can, on the one hand,

Yahya Kardgar; EAS J Humanit Cult Stud; Vol-2: Iss- 4 (Jul-Aug, 2020): 54-65

© East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya 55

provide the rationale for formulating the rhetorical

system of any language and, on the other hand, can

have an impact on conscious, wise, and useful

interaction of languages. This necessity is more

prevalent among the Arabic-Persian rhetoric enjoying a

long-standing connection. The present article compares

the metaphorical view of two languages, descriptively-

analytically and seeks to answer the following

questions: what are the similarities and differences of

the metaphorical research of the two languages? And

how has this similarity and difference affected the use

of metaphor in these two languages?

DISCUSSION Abu Ubaidah and his Majaz al-Qur'an initiated

the metaphorical debate. A discussion that began with

the general name of trope e and then experienced

several periods: 1- The period of outset: from the

second half of the second century to the beginning of

the fourth century. 2-The period of growth; the fourth

and first half of the fifth century. 3. The period of

flourishing - from the fifth to the first half of the

seventh century. 4-The period of recession and decline:

from the second half of the seventh century to the

present day. 5. A period of modernism and a new

perspective: that has been formed in the last hundred

years in parallel with the period of recession and

decline.

The evolution of metaphor-research in Farsi

can be studied in three periods: genesis, extension, and

edition. Since the discussion of metaphor in Arabic

books after Islam is more precedent than Persian

rhetoric books, we will adapt the metaphor discussion

in these two languages while focusing on the five

periods of metaphorical research in Arabic books.

The First Period

In this period, beginning in the second half of

the second century and continuing until the end of the

third century, the subject of metaphor is associated with

Qur'anic and literary discussions and is not yet

recognized as an independent rhetorical subject. Abu

Ubaidah and Ibn Qatibah refer to it in order to discuss

Qur'anic words and meanings, while Jahiz and

Mobarrad have considered metaphors while analyzing

poems and literary texts. Abu Ubaidah, without

mentioning the name of metaphor, refers to trope e in

the general sense of the rhetorical sciences, so that

while introducing the trope e types, it also provides

examples of the metaphor without bringing up its name.

Accuracy in the trope e instances provided by Abu

Ubaidah shows that he uses trope e to include the whole

rhetoric range (Abu Ubaidah, 1981, 18-19), and Ibn

Qatibah also speaks of the absolute borrowing of word

that metaphor can be a subset of it (Sheikhun, 1994, 7).

However, Jahiz refers to the name of the metaphor and

its idiomatic definition, albeit while explaining a verse,

wr t s: “C s t y r t

then replacing it "(Jahiz, 1926, 1/116). Like Ibn

Qatibah, Mobarrad speaks of borrowing words in

Arabic (Sheikhun, 1994, 9). The form of metaphor is

vague in this period; it has no comprehensive definition;

it is not recognized as an independent literary discourse;

its aesthetic and imaginative aspects are not desired; it

is as if this term and its derivatives are used only for the

purpose of clarifying and analyzing thought. At the end

of this period, metaphor is proposed as a poetic and

rhetorical discourse. Thalib in Qawaeed al-Shir,

discussing the "Heikal al-Shir" (physique of poetry),

offers a definition of metaphor: "metaphor is choosing a

name or r s t t r t ts w ”

(Thalib, 1995, 53). In the definition suggested by

Thalib, taking another name refers to an explicit

metaphor, and taking another meaning refers to an

implicit metaphor in the later periods. Finally, it is

worth mentioning Ibn Mu'tazz and his book Al-Baadi,

which studies metaphor under the exquisite name in the

general sense of rhetorical science. Until the beginning

of the tenth century, this feature was also found in

Persian rhetorical books. After quoting the definition of

the metaphor, Ibn Mu'tazz gives examples of the

Qur'an, hadiths and poems and Arabic references, and

finally mentions defective examples of the metaphor

(Ibid, 107) without introducing the reason or reasons for

being defective. By virtue of the merits of Mahasin al-

Kalam of Morghinani, Al-Baadi, written by Ibn

Mu'tazz, is the foundation of the first Persian rhetorical

book that is Tarjoman Al-Bilaghah. This means that

Morghinani has taken a great advantage of al-Baadi

book (Morghani, n.d). In addition, Tarjoman al-

Bilaghah is also an imitation of Mahasin al-Kalam

according to its author (Radaviani, 2001, 120). In this

way, it can be said that the subject of metaphor in

Persian rhetoric books has been influenced by Ibn

Mu'tazz, but from this period on, there is no book left

discussing metaphor or other rhetorical and literary

topics.

The Second Period

This period, which is a period of growth for

metaphor and other rhetorical debates, begins from the

beginning of the fourth century and continues until the

rst t t tury Q J ’ r

Ghazi Jarjani, Romani, Abu helal Askari, Ibn Rashiq

Qiravani and Ibn Sinan Khafaji are some of the

prominent rhetoricians of this period. Each of these

rhetoricians arose from different parts of the Islamic

world and Iran; therefore, they are able to introduce

rhetorical view of Muslim researchers pretty well. The

most important features of the metaphor subject in this

period are: 1) mentioning the types of metaphor

indicating the critical view to this subject. The rhyme

adduction (muâzala) (Qadama, 1884, 66), an acceptable

and unacceptable metaphor, or rejected that is known in

other forms and synonyms, and repeated in the books of

this period, shows a ruling critical look at the discussion

of metaphor in this period. The basis of these categories



is to pay attention to the clarity or ambiguity of the

metaphor, to avoid the riddle and riddle making in it,

and to avoid the metaphorical closeness to the truth. 2)

Paying attention to the position of truth and trope e

(metaphor) in which metaphor will often be superior to

truth, if it is used appropriately and is more useful than

truth. 3) The metaphor in most of the books of this

p r s s uss u r ur s sp ( ’)

the general sense of the rhetorical science. 4) Metaphor

is known as an independent rhetorical discussion, and

each of the books in this period seeks to provide a

definition for it. The theme of all definitions is the use

of the word in a meaning other than its own determined

meaning. Of course, as explained by the authors of this

period, attention to the comparative ratios between the

two sides, unlike the preceding one, has reduced the

metaphorical scope of the metaphor and clarified its

boundaries. 5) Considering the difference between

simile and metaphor, there is a common discussion in

most of the books of this period, which does not lead to

a definitive conclusion. Henceforth, it is a cause for

difference in all periods of studies on metaphor. It has

provoked controversy and turmoil in Farsi books to

which we will refer later. The difference between

metaphor and simile in this period is based on the

elimination or preservation of the words of comparison

and each side being true or trope e. Only Ibn Sanan al-

Khafaji shook the distinction by bringing up

predestined words of comparison. He does not regard

the elimination of the words of comparison as a

metaphor "as words of comparison are omitted in the

literal sense, and being omitted in the literal sense is

like being mentioned" (Sheikhun, 1994, 30). 6)

Mentioning criteria for metaphorical criticism:

consistency of words and meanings, words and words

in metaphor and no tongue twisting between them,

avoidance of excesses in the use of metaphor, its formal

aesthetics and its enlightening role, and above all, the

proportionality and similarity between the metaphorical

sides are some of the important criteria of metaphor

criticism in the books of this period. 7) Considering the

utility and purpose of metaphor is prominent in the

books of this period. Summary of the benefits of

metaphor can be seen in al-Sinaatain of Abu Helal

Askari (Abu Helal Askari, 1993, 262). 8) The concern

for the metaphor having an influence on the audience is

also one of the interesting topics in the books of this

period. 9) The audience's interest in discovering the

beauties of metaphor in al-Ummah ibn Rashiq is

contemplative. Of course, this requires further research.

(Sheikhon, 1994, 27). 10) Another point that is

sometimes found in the books of this period is the

necessity or unnecessity of metaphor in the language

that has been precedent in Aristotle's works and it has

x s t s p r t t ss s r t s’

view of metaphor. For example, Ibn Rashiq Qiravani's

theory can be mentioned in this regard, in which he

does not consider metaphor as a necessity in the Arabic

language (Ibn Rashiq Qiravani, 2000, 1/344). This is

found in Aristotle's works not only about the Arabic

language, but also about all languages (Hawks, 2001,

56). The metaphor-r s r rs’ v w t s p r s

similar to that of Aristotle, which should be sought in

translating Aristotle's works into Arabic during this

period. What is prominent in the metaphorical view of

this period is the analytical-critical view of the

rhetorical writers who, without resorting to the

excessive subdivisions that became commonplace

afterwards, seek to analyze the construction of

metaphor, its critique, its appealing and unappealing

form and its benefit, the connection of metaphor to

truth, and its relation to language and audience.

Although the discussion of metaphor in the

Arabic books of this period has achieved remarkable

growth and maturity, it is beginning its journey in

Persian rhetoric as well. Sometime in between the

second and the third period, the study of metaphor in

Persian rhetorical books started with the authoring of

the Tarjoman al-Balagheh, after which formation

period commenced. This is why the author of the

Tarjoman al-Balagha writes: "And that type is a new

leaf on the rhetoric garden" (Radaviani, 2001, 148).

Since the discussion of metaphor in Persian continued

from the fifth century to the first years of the tenth

century, while undergoing slight developments, this

period is called the "Genesis" period, which is

comparable to the first and second periods of

metaphorical discussion in Arabic books. Books such as

Tarjoman Al-Balagha, Hadaiq-e-Sahar, Al-Mu’jam,

Daghaigh al-Shir, Haghaighah al-Hadaighah, Me’yar

Jamali, Badaaye al-Afkar, and Badaaye al-Sanaaye are

some of the most important books of this period; but the

contents of the first three books are comprehensive

reviews of books of this period on metaphor. The most

important features of metaphor discussion at this stage

are: 1) providing a brief definition of metaphor, that the

literal transition from one meaning to another, the

metaphor being trope e, and the likeness of similarity

between the two meanings are among the most

important points in these definitions. 2) In Genesis

stage books, like the books in the first two Arabic

periods, there is no mention of the metaphorical

components and consequently the formation of different

types on the basis of the components. Mentioning

allegory under the metaphor (Shams Qays, 1994, 320),

and the implicit reference to personification in the

"debate and conversation of the non-speaking plants

and animals" (Ibid, 319) are of the types formed under

the metaphor. The reason for considering the debate

followed by personification can be traced back to the

Iranian pioneering attention to this kind of poetry, the

most prominent example being the Asurig Darakht, a

poem in Pahlavic era, which is a pre- Islamic poem and

has changed the debate of the Palm and the Goat into

poetry. 3) The overwhelming evidence of the implicit

metaphor under metaphor, as is the case in Arabic

books of the first two periods. However, in the Arabic



books of these two periods, the difference between

explicit and implicit metaphors has been mentioned

under the metaphor subject, but there is no mention of

their names, while in the Persian books, the

explanations and definitions refer to the explicit

metaphor, but the examples are of implicit metaphor. 4)

The fusion of metaphorical evidence with the evidence

of metaphorical simile, Implicit simile, and eloquent

simile, which is also an evident in the Arabic books of

the first two periods. Although this difference enjoys a

theoretical support in the Arabic books and the subject

of the difference between simile and metaphor has been

taken seriously in some of the Arabic books with some

evidence, in Persian books, it has either added a

confusion to the explanations (Radaviani, 2001, 158), or

has determined the implicit simile and metaphor to be

the same (Taj al-Halawi, 2004, 47) or even has

considered metaphorical simile and metaphor alike

(Hosseini Neyshabouri, 2005, 220). The intensity of the

simile and metaphor fusion and the frequency of its

occurrences is more prominent in Persian studies. 5)

The metaphor criticism is less common in the Persian

rhetoric than the Arabic rhetoric during the Genesis

period. In Arabic books, the terms rhyme adduction

(M ’z ) pt r j t s s r

critical point of view, while exemplary critiques of

Persian rhetorical criticism are restricted to general

terms such as conceit and exquisite metaphor (Watwat,

1983, 29). Only in al- Ma’ajam of Shams Qais,

metaphor criticism has been considered more, some of

which is reminiscent of Ibn Mu'tazí's manner of

providing subtle and unappealing metaphors (Shams

Qais Razi, 1994, 9-318), and in some cases has come

close to a critical view of the books in the Arabic

second period. (Shams Qays Razi, 1994, 318). The

reason for Shams Qais to be highlighted in this feature

is more relation with the Arabic rhetorical books. As

mentioned by himself, Qais wrote his book in Arabic

language at the beginning (ibid, 32). 6) Most of the

metaphorical evidence in the Genesis books are Persian

evidence except in Hadā'iq al-sihr of Rashid al-Din

Watwat, in which Arabic evidence is prominent (Ibid,

32). However, it is noteworthy that some Persian

rhetoric writers consciously turned to Persianism. This

indicates that attention to the nature of the Persian

language during this period is highlighted.

In short, the Persian language genesis books

were written following the Arabic books of the first and

second periods. Of course, paying attention to the

Persian evidence, highlighting the discourse of

personification due to the longer history of such types

of debate in Iranian culture and language and finally

attention to the nativism and the nature of the Persian

language are among the points that show that the

Persian rhetoricians have had a look at the nature of the

Persian language and its independence from the Arabic

language.

The Third Period

This period covers the first half of the fifth to

the first half of the seventh century, and the discussion

of metaphorical research, in tandem with other

rhetorical discourses, is experiencing remarkable

prosperity. Abdul Qahir Jarjani, author of Asrar al-

Balaghah and Dalael al-ijaz and Zamakhshari the

author Al-Kashshaaf, a rhetoric commentary of Quran is

some of the prominent figures of this period, and of

course, the flourishing of the metaphorical studies

continues to a certain extent in Ibn Khatib Razi. It links

this period to the first years of the seventh century.

The metaphor research of Abdul Qahir, which

is more reflected in the book of Asrar al-Balagha than

the Dalael al-ijaz, points to his mastery on the topic and

his dominance on the subtleties, accuracies, capacity,

and status of the metaphor. His view is an analytical

one and serves to explain and interpret his theory of

poetry. In metaphorical debate, like most rhetorical

arguments, Abdul Qahir is reluctant to phrase it,

although his analytical arguments are the source of the

term- making for the rhetoricians of the later periods.

He combines his theory with a lot of analytical

evidence, and so there is no twist in his materials except

being new. The most important arguments being raised

by him in the discussion of metaphor are: 1) Criticism

t st rs’ v w; t t t t p r s

claim of meaning for an object, not quoting the name

from the object (Jerjani, 1989, 532), criticism of placing

metaphor under figures of speech category "without

being conditioned" (Jorjani, 1995, 256) and finally the

criticism of the metaphor definition of the ancestors

and their sufficiency in examples (Ibid: 16), are

important cr t s s u Q r t st rs’

view. 2) Attention to the position of metaphor in

rhetoric books; Abdul Qahir believes that truth and

trope e, simile, allegory, and then the metaphor, must be

discussed, respectively (Jorjani,1995, 17). But for the

sake of remarks that are not, of course, explicitly stated,

“st rts s su j t y t p r" ( 17) t s s

that the preface of metaphor and trope e in the

Aristotelian tradition has subconsciously directed Abdul

Qahir and some of the rhetoricians toward this path.

This feature is also found in some Persian metaphorical

genesis books such as the Tarjoman al-Balagheh and

the Hedayat al-Sahar. 3) In defining metaphor, he

refers to the non-transfer of the word, its meaning and

its transmission, and the emphasis on the simile motif of

metaphor. Therefore, contrary to the definition of

ancestors, his definition is comprehensive, and

sy t r t ( ’ M qu )

not fall under the metaphor. 4) considering the

conditions of metaphor making; unlike Aristotle, he

believes that not every metaphor can be constructed

from simile and he considers the medium of comparison

having near sources, its easy understanding, and the

affirmation of the custom as the required conditions for

making a t p r s rt s ys: “t sy try



and the reason for the present and the custom must

xpr ss y ur purp s ” ( 151) 5) P y tt t

to the purpose and benefit of metaphor. While praising

t p r t t s s ts r t: “in

this worthy manner of expression, a new face of a

unique immensity is being hidden" (Ibid, 24)" and It

induces many meanings in short words "(Ibid). By the

aid of metaphor, plants come to life, talker and non-

talker become fluent and eloquent and you find quiet

and dumb things to be talkers and preachers. In this

magnificent realm, short and inadequate meanings are

enlightening and lively "(Ibid). 6) Avoiding term-

making, though he speaks of many kinds of metaphors

in Dalail Al-Ajaz and promises to talk about them

elsewhere (Jerjani, 1989, 529); however, his promise

never came true. In his discussion of metaphor, it can be

said that all the types of metaphor that have been

formed in the fourth period of metaphor development

have been rooted from his analytical discussions,

without him making any terms for them. Rather than

pursuing terminology, he thinks about the analysis of

the argument and suggests a way to evaluate the types

of metaphors. The argument of strong and weak

metaphor could be found here as well. The basis of this

division is attention to the words of comparison, tenor,

and vehicle. (Jorjani, 1995, 31,32 ,35) In the

introduction of pure and mere metaphor, he writes:

"comparison is taken from rational images like

metaphor of light with this reasoning, that it unveils the

truth and eliminates doubt and hesitation" (Ibid, 36).

There is not a very positive view of such applications in

the books of the Persian language (Genesis, 1362,

1362). Types such as the oxymoron and conformative

metaphor (Vefaqiah) are inspired by these discussions

of Abdul Qahir in later periods.

He sometimes criticizes the metaphorical types

that preceded him in rhetoric. Among these is the rhyme

adduction that Qaddama ibn Ja'far has mentioned for

the first time, and Abdul Qahir does not reject it in

every context (Jerjani, 1995, 22). 7) Considering

discrepancies under metaphor, including those that have

a long history in the metaphorical discussion. Eloquent

simile and its similarities and differences with

metaphor. Abdul Qahir knows simile as the basis for

both, except that elimination of the simile components

increases hyperbole but does not transform the simile

into a metaphor (Ibid, 21-208). He states explicitly: "it

is enough to say that our word is like simile; is bounded

to hyperbole, is justified in its definition and is not

t p r” (J rj 1989 113) H s us s

the syntactic features of the Arabic language to explain

the difference between simile and metaphor, which is

not possible in Farsi (Jerjani, 1995, 211). He considers

metaphor more exaggerated, more concise, and more

succinct than simile (Ibid, 149); however, he admits that

identifying the exact boundary between simile and

metaphor is simply not possible (Ibid, 214). In addition

to simile and metaphor, attention to simile, allegory,

and metaphor ratio, which is another controversial topic

in the rhetorical books, has a special place in Abdul

Qahir's works. He argues: "The metaphor- speaker

transfers the word from the original meaning but the

w sp s w t x p s t t t”

(Ibid, 149). He mentions singularity of simile in

metaphor and its plurality in allegory as a difference

between metaphor and allegory (Ibid, 161). He regards

the metaphor and allegory that has reached to the

metaphorical level to be of the same nature (Jerjani,

1985, 119), which means the allegorical metaphor of

the later periods. 8) Considering the difference between

the two main types of metaphor, namely explicit and

implicit metaphor, without naming the two. He argues

that the first type of metaphor (explicit) is easily traced

back to its origin (simile), but that the second type

(implicit) reveals its simile origin with the aid of a deep

thinking (Jarjani, 1995, 26). When proving that

metaphor is not in the word but in its meaning, he uses

implicit metaphor evidence (Ibid, 536), and thus

implicit metaphor is superior to the explicit one (Ibid,

537). Although, like Aristotle's works and Persian

rhetoric books, Abdul Qahir emphasizes the implicit

metaphor, his commentary is often concerned with the

explicit metaphor. It seemed that proving explicit

metaphor is easier than implicit one, and implicit

hyperbole and its further avoidance of simile makes it

difficult to prove its metaphorical state. 9) Discussing

the characteristics and introducing the best kind of

metaphor; he knows a reinforcement of the words of

comparison as a necessity for metaphor, so that tenor

cannot be differentiated from vehicle (Ibid, 527).

Abdul Qahir considers the simile and metaphor to be

valuable because they are hard to find (Ibid, 214). 10)

the comprehensive view of Abdul Qahir to figurative

ascription (esnad majazi); at the end of Asrar al-

Bilaghah, Abdul Qahir discusses rational trope,

synecdoche and lexical trope. Although figurative

ascription has been discussed in the Arabic books in the

previous periods, he discusses it in order not to leave

any ambiguity. This subject has attracted attention in

the Farsi books of the second period and post- Safavid

era as well. He mentions two types of figurative

ascription, namely figurative and additive, and knows

both to be of the same kind (Ibid, 245). In distinction of

the figurative ascription that has a literal aspect with the

false speech, he emphasizes the consciousness and

belief of the speaker. He believes that in the figurative

ascription, the speaker uses consciousness, embedded

reasoning, and the possibility of interpretation while

speaking in a trope format, whereas in False speech it is

unaware, manipulative, and unintelligible and used to

deceive the audience. He, therefore, divides the

figurative ascription into two ideological and literary

categories (Ibid, 250). Abdul Qahir explicitly defines

trope and its famous type as metaphor and allegory

(Jorjani, 1989, 112). Thus, introducing trope that

overlaps with the metaphor, especially the implicit

metaphor, is in line with the religious needs of his era



and has religious backgrounds. By this perspective,

introducing this subject can be justified (Georgani,

1995, 250). Failure to pay attention to the religious

motives of this debate will give rise to the turmoil in the

following periods to which we will refer later. The

discussion of the figurative ascription, as well as

introducing its special and general types, and its

benefits are completed in Dalail al- Ijaz (Jorjani, 1989,

368). 11) Abdul Qahir's emphasis on the sentence and

the context of the word in the subject of trope e and

metaphor (Jerjani, 1995, 266), his overview of the

languages including Farsi, in the Metaphorical

Discussion, and not considering Arabic language

superior to other languages in studies on metaphor

(Ibid: 20), the discussion about the meaning of meaning

regarding trope (Jerjani, 1989, 332), paying attention to

some metaphors that constitute components of a

compound (Ibid, 121 and 162), emphasis on the

relativity of ugliness and the beauty of metaphor

(Jerjani, 1995, 161) are some of the prominent points

considered by Abdul Qahir in the issues on metaphor.

Some of his arguments, such as the discussion of

"meaning of meaning," pioneered the theories of

contemporary Western scholars (Attic, n.d, 258), and

some of his theories, such as the superiority of

collective metaphor to the single metaphor supported

with evidence and explanations, have not been studied

accurately in studies on metaphor (Jorjani, 1989, 121).

In short, Abd al-Qahir's view is a collection of the

st rs t p r r s’ v w r u r utur

debates and the emergence of new ideas in the field of

metaphor-research and other rhetorical topics.

Unfortunately, this view has little to do with the first

and second periods of Persian metaphor- research, it has

lost its way in the Arabic metaphor-research period, and

its capacities are underutilized.

Abd al-Qa'ir's views regarding metaphor and

other rhetorical topics are loaded and stabilized in Al-

Kashshaaf written by Zamakhshari (1114). In addition

to representing Quran evidences for metaphor and other

rhetorical topics, Zamakhshari uses analyses and

interpretations of Abdul Qahir to name the types of

metaphor which are still repeated under the category of

metaphor. Some of the names are explicit, implicit,

main, submerged, allegorical, abstract, and stipulated

(Morashahah). What highlights Zamakhshari and his

Kashshaaf in the metaphorical research is his religious

view of the rhetorical discourses, which views the

s t s (M ’ ) ur t v u s t

sciences devoted to the Qur'an and regards the mastery

t s s s s t ss ty t t t r’s

work. With such a view, metaphor research is linked to

the text of the Qur'an, and the types of metaphor

become meaningful in relation to the verses of the

Qur'an, and henceforth receive greater attention. After

Zakhakhshari, Ibn Khatib Razi (1209) continued the

work of Abdul Qahir, and his book Nayyah-Al-Ijaz fi

Darayatah Al-Ijaz summarizes the Dalil al Ijaz and

Asrar al- Balaghah written by Abdul Qahir. Except the

fact that he added to its divisions and explanations

(Sheikhun, 1994-39, 39). Ibn Khatib Razi's special view

about Hadeq al-Sahir Rashid al-Din Watawat can be

considered as a turning point in the link between Arabic

and Persian rhetoric. However, in the field of metaphor-

research, Ibn Khatib Razi has no prominent place due to

presence of works of Abdul Qahir.

The Fourth Period

Beginning in the seventh century and

continuing until today, this period is dominated by the

views of the Arabic- writing Iranians that are Sakaki,

Khatib Qazwini, and Taftazani. Although there are

major trends in Egypt and Yemen and the works of Ibn

A'thir, Ibn 'Abi al-Nabi, and the Alawi Yemeni, the

influence of Sakaki and his commentators on the

rhetorical discourse is so much that there is no

opportunity left for the original trends. The second

period of metaphor- research in Farsi is also linked to

the works of Sakaki and his followers, to the extent that

many Persian works in this period can be considered as

translations of the works of the fourth period. However,

works such as Hedayat al-Balagha's studies continue to

adhere to Persianism and attention to the books of the

first Persian period. The second period of Persian

metaphor-l research began in the early years of the tenth

century and continues today. Most of the rhetorical

books of the Safavid, Zandieh, Afsharieh, Qajarieh, and

Pahlavi era are in the second period. Writings such as

Anwar al-Balagha by Mohammad Hadi bin Mohammad

Saleh Mazandarani, Bayan al-badi’s Excerpts by Mirza

Abutaleb Fanderski, Motale’ by Razi al-Din

Mohammad, Abda al-Badai by Shams al-Alma'a

Garkani, Mu'allam al-Balagha by Mohammad Khalil

al-Raja'I and Dorar al-Adab by hesam al-Alma'a Aagh

Ula are some of these works. The rhetoricians of this

period are trapped and stagnated on the pretext that the

past has left nothing for the future and there is nothing

to add to the rhetorical debate.

The most important features of Sakkaki's

vision are: 1) he places the discussion of metaphor

under the figurative language (Bayan) the initiator of

which is Abdul Qahir Jarjani and it is stabilized by

Sakkaki. 2) Sakkaki's definition of metaphor is not an

invention, but it is interesting in that it is defined in

relation to simile. As opposed to the Aristotelian

tradition and even against the primacy of the metaphor

in Abdul Qahir, the simile is first discussed and then

metaphor is defined in such a way that its relation to the

simile becomes apparent. The point noted in Sakkaki's

definition is the elimination or retention of the two sides

of simile. That is, his definition refers to the implicit

and explicit metaphor, while the definitions of the past

often emphasized the elimination of tenor and the

formation of explicit metaphor, though their evidence

was often of the implicit type. This characteristic raised

questions in the audience's mind. Sakkaki fixed this



defect. He regards metaphor as a rational trope, not a

lexical one, and speaks of Abdul Qahir's hesitation

between lexical and rational trope (Sakkaki, no date,

157). What is prominent in Sakkaki's explanation is his

special attention to symmetry and divides it into two

types of single meanings and related meanings, which

urs x st pr v us r s; w v r S ’s

emphasis on this subject is more (ibid, 159). The

important point is that with the introduction of varieties

such as diminishing (Tahkamiah) and Sarcasm

(Tamlihiah) and the long-standing justifications to

prove them, Sakaki virtually excludes the discussion of

metaphor from vigor. Justifications are also translated

and repeated in Persian books (Ibid, 159). In Sakaki's

metaphorical discourses, the reduction of analytical and

interesting aspects and the addition of the metaphorical

types are prominent. He added types such as definite,

probabilistic, etc. that do not help much to the

metaphorical discussion and some types such as the

diminishing and submerged metaphors that are

incompatible with the definition of metaphor, and they

can be mentioned under the category of metaphor just

by using artifice and pretension. In general, SakKaki

can be seen as an extremist imitator of Abdul Qahir

Jarjani, Zakhakhri and Fakhr razi, and there is a fact

that if he had not come up with the metaphorical and

other rhetorical arguments, these arguments would have

been more effective.

Khatib Qazvini repeated the same content of

Sakaki in Iza’ah and Talkhis. In the preface of Talkhis,

while praising Sakkaki, he regards his work as

interpreting and removing it from the hassle (Ibid.: 37).

He has collected the past defitions to prepare a

definition for metaphor (Khatib, 2008, 151). The

symmetry types in Khatib are divided into three types

of single, numerous, and related meanings, summarized

by Sakaki in two types (Ibid, 153). In addition, he

divides the metaphor into six types based on its triple

components (tenor, vehicle, general), which were

divided into five types in Sakkaki (Ibid, 156). The

“sy try r t r t p r v r ” w w s t

subject and verb in Abdul Qahir and Sakaki, was

increased in Khatib by the addition of the genitive noun

(Majrur) (Ibid, 158). He added absolute metaphor to the

stipulated and abstract metaphors, which were

explained in Sakkaki, but they were not named (Ibid,

158). In the summary, he prefers the stipulated

metaphor to the other types because it does not pay

attention to simile but increases hyperbole (Ibid, 159).

Khatib, despite being a follower of Sakkaki, has

criticized some of his views in pages 163-162 of

Talkhis. In the definition of the lexical trope, he

disagrees with Sakkaki that allegory is a part of the

explicit metaphor and the abstract trope; and disagrees

that submerged metaphor goes back to the implicit

metaphor. Taftazani in Mottawal, as mentioned in the

preface, explains Talkhis al-Miftah Qazvini and its

errors (Taftazani, 1995, 4). In a comparative study of

the Arabic and Persian rhetoric, Taftazani can be

attributed to the association of the Persian books of the

second period with the metaphor- research issues of

Sakaki and his essays. This point is mentioned in most

of the books of the second Persian period (Fanderski,

2002, 15; Saleh Mazandarani, 1997, 20). Therefore, the

metaphor research flow in the fourth and second periods

of Persian literature is quite adaptive, and there is no

remarkable point in the Persian books except in the

Persian evidence and sometimes in the summarizing

contents. In spite of the imitation in Persian books in

the second period, unfortunately the main framework of

the metaphor in today's Persian books is a reminder of

this period.

To summarize, in the context and content of

the fourth Arabic and second Persian studies of

metaphor, which goes towards useless recession,

stagnation and prolixity, the mainstream of Egyptian

and Yemeni metaphor research in Arabic, and Persian

trends in the Persian language tend to revive the

original studies of metaphor –research. It is a popular

trend in Persian and Arabic, and in addition to its

origins can be considered as a foundation for a new

look at metaphor.

The Fifth Period

This period can be seen as an age of

modernism and a new look at the rhetorical issues in

general and metaphors in particular. Rhetorical and

metaphorical research in Arabic and Persian entered a

new era after a long period of stagnation beginning

from the first half of the seventh century and the rise of

Sakkaki, and continued until the early years of the

fourteenth century. The modernist rhetoricians opposed

stagnation. Understanding the necessity of changing

rhetorical studies, expanding educational and academic

centers, and the necessity of developing educational

textbooks that were far from complexity to teach

rhetorical topics easily led to the creation of critical

works on rhetorical topics. Therefore, the educational,

research, and critical aspects of the issues on metaphor

are prominent in the fifth Arabic and Third Persian

language books. A critical look at the rhetorical

sciences and, consequently, the discussion of metaphor,

is something that is also explicitly found in the Persian

books of third period (Forouzanfar, 1997, 3 and

Homayi, 1995, 183). The following are the most

important features of issues on metaphor in the books of

this period.

Reflection on the Definition of Metaphor

Providing a comprehensive definition of

metaphor is something that has been addressed in

Persian and Arabic books of this period. Referring to

the simile base of metaphor, elimination of one of the

sides and paying attention to the two main metaphors,

namely implicit and explicit while defining the

metaphor, emphasizing the simile interest between the



parts, and the need for symmetry in the metaphor are

some points that have perfected the definition of

metaphor and have prevented it from being confused

with other trope s. Finally, with a clear explanation of

the limits of metaphors, we come to a succinct

definition: "Metaphor is a trope e with simile interest"

(Ameli, -2012, 142). The interesting point here is that

despite a full definition of metaphor in the books of this

period, following the books of the first and second

periods, explicit metaphor come to mind, but the

evidence are of the implicit metaphor (Hashemi, 2011,

295). This feature is prominent in the Arabic books and

can be evidenced. This is because of repetition of the

evidence on metaphor that have always been trending

toward implicit metaphor.

In the study of the definition of metaphor in

the Arabic fifth period and the Persian third period, one

cannot speak from a linguistic point of view, which is

more prominent in Persian books and does not, of

course, contain anything new, but rather proposes the

same definition of metaphor in the form of new terms.

In addition, it is rooted in Saussure, Jacobson, and

Western linguists and critics (Safavi, 2004, 130).

Attention to the Components of Metaphor

Attention to the components of the metaphor

has been highlighted in the fourth period of metaphor

research and has been the basis for the formation of

multiple metaphorical types; however, there is a

difference between the Arabic and Persian rhetoricians.

This difference is rooted in their visions. That is to say,

the Arabic rhetoricians pay attention to the difference

between the metaphor and the simile while introducing

the components of the metaphor, and therefore,

according to the briefness of metaphor, and in

comparison with the simile, they spoke of the three

components of tenor, vehicle, and metaphor (Hashemi,

2011, 299). However, Persian rhetoricians paid

attention to the relation and similarity of simile and

metaphor. Therefore, following the simile, they

introduced four components of tenor, vehicle,

metaphor, and general. As a result, the existential

philosophy of metaphor and its difference with simile

has been slightly confused in Persian rhetoric.

Paying attention to symmetry in metaphorical

structure is a common feature of Arabic and Persian

books. The necessity of having symmetry in metaphor

and dividing it into lexical and contextual symmetry has

been emphasized in Persian and Arabic books. The

symmetry role in the formation of the stipulated,

abstract, and absolute metaphors is of interest to the

metaphor researchers of this period. Among the

rhetoricians of this period, Shamisa has a different view

of the symmetry role in the stipulation and abstraction

of the metaphor, which is contemplative, and illustrates

the accuracy of his views (Shamisa, 1999, 160). Some

Arabic books, following the earlier rhetorical books,

divide the lexical symmetry into three parts that are in a

single meaning or in more than one meaning, or in

related and compound meanings, which have not been

addressed in Persian books (Maraghi, 1993, 265).

Instead, in some Persian rhetorical books, the symmetry

scope is expanded (Homayi, 1995, 174; Shamisa, 1999,

166). The Persian rhetorical books are more precise on

the role of the connotative symmetry (Sarifah) in the

metaphor, and emphasize that it only discards the mind

from the true meaning, but it is not sufficient to

understand the intended trope meaning. Thus,

connotative and homonymic symmetries (Moayanah

symmetry) (in common words) are then used

metaphorically (Homayi, 1995, 173, and Shamisa,

1999, 205). In general, it can be said that the discussion

of symmetry in the books of this period has a

considerable scope.

Attention to the Relation of Metaphor with the

Similar Terms

The comparison between the simile and

metaphor and the difference between the two was more

evident in the fifth period books and the Arabic books

often influenced by the views of Abdul Qahir Jarjani

and other second and third period metaphor researchers.

In most of the books of this period, the simile base of

metaphor attracted attention; but they are not unaware

of the difference between the two. Maraghi considers

metaphor as a simile with the elimination of one of the

sides, the words of comparison and the medium of

comparison. Regarding the difference between simile

and metaphor, he writes that unity does not occur in the

simile mentioning the sides as well, while in metaphor,

unity and synthesis are claimed, to the extent that one

party may be named after another (Maraghi, 1993, 260).

Another point that has been noted in the relation of

simile and metaphor in the books of this period is that

the move from simile to metaphor is seen as a move

from "beautiful to more beautiful" (Zubai, Halawi,

1996, 95) and such a hierarchy is considered between

these imaginary elements: Simile-Simile with the

deletion of words of comparison- simile with the

deletion of words and medium of comparison –

metaphor. They know in short, the rhetoric of simile in

its hyperbole, and this hyperbole is increased by

eliminating words and the medium of comparison and

one of the sides (Agent, 2012, 142).

In the hierarchy of transition from simile to

metaphor, the eloquent simile is in the middle of the

road. Therefore, an accurate identification of the

boundary of eloquent simile and metaphor has been one

of the concerns of rhetorical books. Entering this

discussion, the fifth period books have attempted to

illustrate the way to differentiate eloquent simile from

metaphor. In their view, the sides are present in the

eloquent simile nonetheless, but in metaphor, the simile

is forgotten (Jarm, Amin, 2012, 95). The possibility or

the impossibility of removing words of comparison is



another way of identifying implicit simile and

metaphors (Zubeyi, Halawi, 1996, 95).

Attention to the relation of the allegorical

metaphor and allegory is also found in the fifth period

books. The relationship between the two has always

been the subject of controversy in the Persian and

Arabic books. Homayi has elaborated on these issues

and has described terms such as Compound

Synecdoche, compound trope to metaphor, and has

resolved disagreements by expressing the distinction

between simile, allegory, and making "metaphorical

exemplum" (Homayi, 1995, 190-200). In the relation of

the two, Hashemi speaks of the allegorical metaphor

source of exemplum, prevalence of proverb among the

people, its constant form in every morphological and

syntactical state, its superiority over other trope types

because of its allegorical simile root and its compound

medium of comparison (Hashemi, 2011, 316). Most of

the Arabic books of this period have focused on this

subject, but less attention has been given to it in the

Persian books.

The Types of Metaphor Criticism

What is disturbing the metaphorical subject is

the formation of different terms and variation.

sometimes the philosophy of the type formation is

unclear and sometimes the formed terms overlap, and

sometimes the changes in the perspective forms a

specific type. Finally, interest in making terms and

looking at details sometimes shape some types that are

inconsistent with the definition of metaphor. Hence, the

books of this period criticized and analyzed the types of

metaphors. Although both the Persian and Arabic

rhetoricians disapproved the turmoil in this area, they

took two different approaches to face it. The Arabic

rhetoricians often criticized Sakkaki and his

commentators and knew the divisions and terminology

as the cause for the loss of the value and validity of the

rhetorical issues, and in turn, they liked and praised the

views of Abdul Qahir Jarjani, Abul Hilal Askari, and

generally the second and third period rhetoricians who

favored briefness and analyzed aesthetics of metaphor

(Maraghi, 1993, 8 and 10; Sheikhun, 1994, 60 and 68;

Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 5, 93, 96). As a result, they liked

briefness in introducing the types of metaphor. For

instance, there is nothing about the types that cause the

disturbance of the metaphor in Balaghah al-Wahdah.

This group of rhetoricians only explains and provides

evidence for the explicit, implicit, and allegorical

metaphor. They know explicit and implicit metaphors

as the most important types of metaphor and they avoid

the types that "distract the mind of the rhetoric and

st t p t s t t p r” (Zu H w

1996, 101). However, the Persian rhetoricians still

recognize Sakkaki and his followers as excelling in this

field and attempt to highlight the similarities and

differences of types by discussing various types.

Perhaps the Arabic origin of these types gives the Arab

rhetoricians more daring and boldness to modify the

term, and urges them to eliminate unnecessary items.

However, the fifth period's early books such as

Jawahar-e-Balagheh, Balagheh al-Wahdah, and the

Ulum Balagheh are still bound by the relations and

differences of the implicit, submerged, and imaginary

metaphors (Hashemi, 2011, 304; Jarm, Amin, 2012, 74;

Maraghi, 1993, 272). They also try to reduce the

severity of the differences by specifying the appellation

and the philosophy of naming the types under

discussion and thus defend these divisions (Hashemi,

2011, 303, 306, 307). But the process of metaphorical

transformation towards eliminating disparate types is

unnecessary.

A Critique of the Logical, Theological, and

Philosophical Views

The fusion of rhetorical debates with other

scholars culminated in al-Sakati's Miftah al-'Ulum and

continued in his followers and commentators

(Sheikhun, 1994 AD, 67); while before him, getting

away from non- rhetorical debates in the works of some

of the rhetoricians was praised. As it is written about

Abu Hulal Askari: "He explicitly says that he did not

compose his work in the manner of theologians, but that

it was written in the style of poets and writers who are

cultivators of speech" (Atiq, Beta, 198). The result of

the excesses in non-rhetorical tendencies is the

formation of critical sentences like this: "Rhetoric has

changed to barren arduous rules which are laid down in

a rational dry form" (Ibid: 268). So, in the preface to

the rhetorical books of this period, "the book being

empty of margins" (Ameli, 2012, 13) and the rhetorical

discussion in a "scientific-literary" manner (Ibid, 14)

are emphasized. This moderate approach liberated the

metaphor discussion from unnecessary divisions,

simplified its teaching by its simple and brief

introduction, and freed it from complex and arduous

arguments.

In the third period of metaphor research,

Foruzanfar is the beginner of this view (Forouzanfar,

1997, 5) Shafi'I Kadkani also criticizes the verbal view

in the relational trope and denounces it in all the

rhetoric fields (Shafi'i Kadkani, 1993, 104).

Comparing and Contrasting Arabic and Persian

Metaphor with the Western Studies

The rhetoric of Western rhetorical research in

the Islamic world can be traced back to the first periods

of metaphorical research, and even Sakkaky has been

criticized in later periods for his attention to Greek

practices (Maraghi, 1993, 9). Although such a look at

the works of Sakaki is a new one, the relation of the

works by Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi with Aristotle's

works in the seventh century also imposes a link

between Sakaki and the Greek viewpoint.



The precedent of metaphor over the simile, the

importance of the implicit metaphor and the

personification and abundance of their evidence, the

prominence of the analytical and aesthetic point of view

in some rhetorical books, the tendency to eliminate

unnecessary terms, the attention to new Western

schools and perspectives in the research on metaphor all

point to the link between the research on metaphor in

the Islamic and the Western worlds. Dozens of books

translated from Western languages into Persian and

Arabic in the last period of research on metaphor and

the modern era show that the adaptation of the rhetoric

of Islam with the rhetoric of the West in this period

influenced the course of the research on metaphor. Of

course, if this path is not examined seriously, the

prospect will not be promising.

Alongside the aforementioned common

features between the metaphors of the fifth Arabic

period and the third Persian period, there are some

differences between the two as well.

Analytical look at the metaphor

The aesthetic aspects of metaphor and its

analytical look are more evident in the Arabic books of

the fifth period. This view is often influenced by the

second and third periods of Arabic metaphor- research,

but the Persian books had no serious regard for these

two periods. The natural tendency of man to trope, the

power of its imagination, the amplification of the word,

the multiplication of meanings and the accuracy of

expression, the creation of happiness in man (Hashemi,

2011, 281), bringing meaning to the mind, arousing the

imagination, the power of persuasion (Maraghi, 1993,

281), good Imagary, Enlightenment (Sheikhun, 1994,

80), a new interpretation, along with illusions,

contemplation, and the conversion of spiritual affairs to

sensual ones (Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 92) are all among

the most important benefits of metaphor. Sheikhon

points to the benefits of Qur'anic metaphors, which can,

of course, be expanded to a lower level to literary texts

and their metaphors as well (Sheikhun, 1994, 83).

The rhetorical position of metaphor in most of

the fifth period books has gained an independent place

(Jarm, Amin, 2012, 94; Maraghi, 1993, 281; Sheikhun,

1994, 93). Ways and means of identifying rhetoric of

metaphor (Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 103), paying attention

to the metaphor evaluation, providing the criteria for

good metaphors, and paying attention to the eccentricity

of metaphor and its factors are among the other points

that are originated from the analytical view of the

metaphor researchers of the fifth period. The superiority

of the allegorical metaphor due to its basis of allegorical

simile, and its medium of comparison is abstracted from

different issues, and it is difficult and contemplative

(Maraghi, 1993, 288; Hashemi, 2011, 316). A

hierarchical expression of metaphor types, namely, the

metaphorical metaphor, implicit metaphor, and explicit

metaphor (Sheikhun, 1994, 80), the superiority of

stipulation over abstraction because of ignoring simile

and enforcing hyperbole (Ameli, 2012, 146) are some

of the points in the books of this period. The books of

this period regard the moderation in eccentricity and

proximity to the mind as the criterion of good metaphor

(Ibid, 147). Finally, in line with the analytic view of

metaphor, the eccentricity of metaphor and its causes

are discussed in the fifth period books, which have

received little attention in the earlier periods (Maraghi,

1993, 268). In the books of third period of Farsi

metaphor- research, there is not much analytical view

except in Sovar e-Khial by Shafi'I Kadkani, and

somehow in Balaghah Taswir written by Fotuhi being

influenced by the Western rhetoric and Bayan written

by Kazazi and Bayan written by Shamisa. Referring to

the terms and conditions of applying the meaning of

trope in the forms of Shafi'I's Sovar e-Khial (Shafi'i

Kadkani, 1993, 120), which is influenced by the

rhetoric books of the second and third Arabic periods,

indicating the reasons for superiority stipulation over

abstraction in Bayan written by Kazazi, mentioning

some points regarding the value of metaphor in this

book , and finally, the dispersed analytical and aesthetic

look at Shamisa's Bayan are some of the most important

points in line with the analytical approach to metaphor

reflected in Persian books, which are weak in

comparison to the Arabic books.

A Criticism of Disregarding the Nature of the

Persian Language

This nature is characteristic of the Persian

books. It should be indicated that Arabic language has

long been the source of its rhetorical debates, and with

the exception of the sporadic sentences that have

criticized Greekism of the Arabic rhetoricians, there is

no mention of disregarding the nature of the Arabic

language.

Such criticisms are found in the books of the

third Persian period, especially in introducing the

different types of trope (Homayi, 1995, 205) and

submerged metaphor in letters (Ibid, footnote 186),

Forouzanfar (Forouzanfar, 1997, 6) and Shafiei

Kadkani (Shafi'i Kadkani, 1993, 102) have spoken

about this more than others. in current research, of

course, Arabic and Persian languages, and the

characteristics of the two, are lost and threatened in the

face of the Western research that dominates them;

however, they require serious attention.

Nativism in the rhetorical and metaphorical

discourses of Farsi has just started, and has only led to

Farsiism in sub-terms of metaphor. This feature is

evident in Bayan written by Kazazi, and the book of

Bayan in Persian poetry by Behrouz Tharvatian, which

does not seem to be helping the problems of rhetoric

and metaphor.



CONCLUSION The ups and downs of metaphorical discussion

in Arabic books have been more than the Persian books.

In the first, second, and early years of the third periods,

a book on the subject of metaphor in Persian has not yet

been compiled, and it is not possible to study metaphor

in Arabic and Persian at the same time. This possibility

begins with the third period of the Arabic metaphor

research. The first period of Persian metaphor research

is comparable to the first and to some extent the second

periods, its second period is matched with the fourth

Arabic period, and its third period is compatible to the

fifth Arabic period. The Persian metaphor researchers

have not received much benefit of the third period of

the Arabic metaphor research, which is the period of its

glory. Generally speaking, metaphor research in Farsi

began with translating the Arabic subjects. Then, it

moved toward translation and mere imitation. Finally,

over the last hundred years, Persian metaphor research

tried to criticize, modify, and accommodate the Arabic

metaphor research with the nature of Persian language

using a critical view. Of course, in the latter period of

the Arabic and Persian metaphor research, both currents

were influenced by Western research, and if this

ignorance of the native researches of the two languages

continues, there will not be a good perspective for the

subject of metaphor and other rhetorical issues. The

necessity of formulating metaphorical culture,

examining the evolution of metaphor in literary texts,

styles and types of literature, reinforcing the analytical

and aesthetic aspects of metaphorical debate, the need

to pay attention to the nature of languages in the use of

other nations' research, and finally, preserving the

interesting and imaginary aspects of the metaphor

subject in contrast to schools and theories that examine

metaphor with a scientific perspective, should be taken

into account in future Arabic and Persian research.

REFERENCES 1. Abbas, M. (2008). Abdul Qahir Jarjani and New

Perspectives on Literary Criticism, Translated by

Maryam Musharraf. Tehran: Nashcheshmeh.

2. Abdul Qahir, J. (1989). Dalail Al-Ijaz Fi al- Quran,

translated by Seyyed Mohammad Radmanesh.

Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi.

3. Abdul Qahir, J. (1995). Asrar Balagheh, Translated

by Jalil Tajliz, Fourth Edition. Tehran: University

of Tehran.

4. Agh Ula., & Hussein, A. (1994). In Dorar al-

Adab. Qom: Hijra.

5. Al-Ameli, al-Sheikh Moien Daghigh. (2012).

Dorous Fi al- Balagheh. Beirut: Dar Jawad al-

A'mah.

6. Aljarm, A., & Mustafa, A. (2012). Al-Balagheh al-

Wahdah. Qom: Zawi-al-Qirbi.

7. Al-Maraghi, al-Mustafa. (1993). Ulum al

Balagheh. Lebanon, Beirut: Dar al-Kutab al-

Umayyah.

8. Al-Maraghi, al-Mustafa. No-date. Mahasen al-

Kalam, by the efforts of Mohammad Fesharaki.

Isfahan: Isfahan Cultural Center.

9. Al-Mobarad, Abi al-Abbas Mohammed bin Yazid.

(2010). Al-Kamel, Al-Jazeera Al-Awl, by the efforts

of Mohammed Abolfazl Ibrahim. Beirut: Al-

Maktaba Al-Assariyah.

10. Al-Sakkaki. No-date. Miftah Al-Alum. Qom: Urmia

Library Publications.

11. Al-Sayyed Sheikhun, Muhammad. (1994).

Metaphor, Its Genesis and Evolution. Dar al-

Hidayah, Second Edition.

12. Althimi al-Timi, Abi Abideh Moammar. (1981).

Majaz al Quran, Al-Jazeera Al-Aul, by the efforts

of Mohammad Fad Sezkin. Beirut: al-Rasala

Institute.

13. Al-Zuba'i, Talib Mohammed and Halawi, Nasser.

(1996). Al-Bayyan and al-Badieh. Beirut: Dar al-

Nazeja al-Arabiya and Al-Jawrah.

14. Amarati Moqaddam, David. (2016). Rhetoric from

Athens to Medina. Tehran: Hermes.

15. Askari, A., Hassan bin Abdullah bin Soheil.

(1993). Me’yar al Balagheh. Translation of the

S ’ t tr s t y M J v

Nasiri. Tehran: University of Tehran.

16. Atftazani. (1995). Al-Matool. Qom: Dawari School.

17. Attiq, Abdulaziz. No-date. The history of the

Arabic rhetoric. Beirut: Dar al-Nahda al-Arabia.

18. Fouruzanfar, B. A. (1997). Ma’a:ni and Bayan, by

the efforts of Seyyed Mohammad dabir Siaghi.

Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and

Literature, Letter of the Academy, Annex 3.

19. Fundersky, M. A. (2002). Excerpts of the exquisite

Bayan, Corrected by Seyedeh Maryam Ravatian,

First Edition. Isfahan: Islamic Propaganda Office

of Isfahan Branch.

20. Haghshenas, A. M. (1991). Literary, Linguistic

Papers, "The Classification of Jarjani Metaphor,

Special Reference to the Classification of

Aristotle's Metaphor", First Edition. Tehran:

Niloufar.

21. Hashimi, A. (2011). Jawahir al-Balagheh,

correction, translation and Diacritic transcribed by

Mahmoud Khorsandi, Hamid Masjidarai. Tehran:

Payam Noavar Publications (Former Islamic Law).

22. Hawks, T. (2001). Metaphor, translation by

Farzaneh Taheri, Second Edition. Tehran: Center

Publishing.

23. Hedayat, R. G. K. (2004). Madarij al-Balagheh,

edited by Hamid Hassani, Contribution by Behrouz

Safarzadeh, First Edition. Tehran: Academy of

Persian Language and Literature.

24. Ibn Mu'tazid, Abdullah bin Mohammed. (2016).

Al-Badi book. translation and research by Yahya

Kardgar, Bahauddin Eskandari. Qom: Bustan e

Ketab Institute.

25. Ibn Nadim, & Muhammad bin Isaac. (1967). Al

Fihrist. Translated by M. Reza Tajadod, Tehran:



Iran Commercial Bank Printing House, Second

Edition.

26. Ibn Rashiq al-Qirwani, Abi Ali al-Hasan. (2000).

Al-Umda (vol 1), by Salah al-Din al-Hawari, A.

Hoda Oudah. Beirut: Dar al-Hilal.

27. Jahiz. (1926). Albian and al-Tabin, by the efforts of

Hasan al-Sandoubi. Qom: Urmia Library

Publications.

28. Jalaluddin, H. (1995). Meanings and figurative

language, Third Edition. Tehran: Homa Publishing,

29. Khattib al-Qawzwini. (2008). Talkhis al-Miftah, by

the efforts of Yassin Al-Aubi. Beirut: Al-Maktabah

al-Assariyah.

30. Mir Jalaluddin, K. (1991). Bayan, Second Edition.

Tehran: Center Publishing.

31. Moqimizadeh, M. M. (2015). Metaphor in Islamic

Rhetoric. Tehran: Tahora.

32. Nishaburi, H., Burhanuddin A. M. (2005). Badia-

al-Sanayah, Correction of Rahim Muslim

Ghobadiani, First Edition. Tehran: Mahmoud

Afshar Endowment Foundation.

33. Q J ’ r (1884) Naqd al- Shi’r, first

edition. Constantinople: Javanib Pub.

34. Radavian, Mohammad bin Omar. (2001).

Tarjoman al-Balagha, edited by Ahmad Atash,

with the effort and translation of the introduction

by Tofigh. H. Sobhani - Esmaeil Hakami, First

Edition. Tehran: Association of Cultural Works.

35. Rajaie, Mohammad Khalil. (1993). Ma’alim al-

Balagheh, Third Edition, Shiraz: Shiraz University.

36. Rami Tabrizi, Sharafuddin Hassan bin Mohammed.

(1962). Haqqaiq al-Hadeq, edited by Seyyed

Mohammad Kazem Imam, first edition. Tehran:

University of Tehran.

37. Sadeq Saeed, Ehsan. (2000). Rhetorical Sciences in

Arabic and Persian. Damascus: Islamic Republic

of Iran Cultural Consultation, Iranian-Arabic

Cultural Research Unit.

38. Safavi, Kuroush. (2004). From Linguistics to

Literature, Volume Two: Poetry, First Edition.

Tehran: Surah Mehr.

39. Safavi, Kuroush. (2017). Metaphor, first edition.

Tehran: Scientific Publication.

40. Saleh Mazandarani, Mohammad Hadi bin

Mohammad. (1997). Anwar al-Balagheh, edited by

Mohammad Ali Gholaminejad, first edition.

Tehran: Qibla Cultural Center, and Heritage

Publishing Office.

41. Shafie Kadkani, & Mohammad Reza. (1993).

Sowarr e- khiyal, in Persian Poetry, Fifth Edition.

Tehran: Agah.

42. Shafie Mostofi, Raziyeddin Mohammad bin

Mohammad. (2010). Mat’lah, MSc Thesis. Qom:

Qom University.

43. Shams al-Alma'i Garkani, Haj Mohammad

Hussein. (1998). Abda’ al Badayah, by Hossein

Jafari, with introduction of Jalil Tajliz, first edition.

Tabriz: Aharar.

44. Shams Fakhri Isfahani. (2010). Me’yar Jamali,

Correction by Yahya Kardgar, First Edition.

Tehran: Library, Museum and Document Center of

the Majlis.

45. Shams Razi, R. (1994). Al-Mujamm fi Ma’ayar

Asha’r al-Ajam, by the efforts of Sirus Shamisa,

First Edition. Tehran: Ferdows.

46. Shemisa, S. (1999). Bayan, Seventh Edition.

Tehran: Ferdows.

47. Shoughi, Z. (2004). History and notation of

rhetorical science, translation by Mohammad Reza

Torki. Tehran: Side.

48. T t z S ’ (2003) Mokhtasar al Ma’ani.

Qom: Dar al-Fakr Publications.

49. Taj al-Halawi, Ali bin Mohammed. (2004).

Daghaigh al Shi’r, by the efforts of Mohammad

Kazem Imam. Tehran: University of Tehran.

50. Thaqlab. (1995). Qawaid al Shi’r, by Ramadan

Abdul Tawab. Cairo: Maktabah al-Khanji.

51. Tharwatian, Behrouz. (1999). Bayan in Persian

Poetry. Tehran: Barg Publishing.

52. Waiz Kashefi Sabzevari, Kamaluddin Hussein.

(1990). Badayah al- Afkar fi Sanayah al-Asha’r,

edited by Mir Jalaleddin Kazazi, First Edition.

Tehran: Center Publishing.

53. Watwat. (1983). Hedayegh al-Sahar fi Daqayaq al-

Sha'ir, correction by Abbas Iqbal Ashtiani, first

edition. Tehran: Taheri & Sanai Library.

Documents

A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Arabic and Persian